THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION No.21580 of 2017

ORDER:

The petitioner was trained in Carriage Workshop, Lallaguda, for the

course of Course Completed Act Apprentice, during the period 2004 to 2007 under the Apprentice Act, 1961. In response to the Notification dated 25.06.2007, he was screened for the post of Substitute Helper-II (as fresh face) in the Scale of Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay Rs.1800 in Carriage Repair Workshop, Tirupati. He was subjected to medical tests as per Indian Railway Medical Manual (IRMM) by the Senior Divisional Medical Officer, Railway Hospital, Guntakal, and was certified as “unfit for all medical categories” vide Certificate dated 12.06.2009. Petitioner, on his own volition, got himself tested at Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad, and submitted a Representation dated 23.06.2011, stating that he underwent medical examination at Gandhi Hospital, and the medical authorities certified that “No abnormality in the vision of eyes and physical fitness”. The representation was replied vide Letter dated 04.08.2011 by stating that the request of the petitioner for re-medical examination could not be considered as the appeal time was only 30 days and the petitioner approached after two years, and further the petitioner has suppressed the fact of his medical rejection by the Railway authorities, which is evident from the fact that the Gandhi Hospital certificate does not refer to the earlier rejection of the petitioner by the Railway medical authorities. The petitioner thereafter filed another representation dated 15.07.2016, and as the same was not considered, he filed W.P.No.2111 of 2017, wherein this Court passed interim orders dated 01.03.2017 directing to consider the representation. In pursuance of the orders of this Court, the petitioner’s

representation was considered and rejected vide the impugned Order dated 10.04.2017. Aggrieved by non-consideration of his request for re-medical examination, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

2. Heard Mr. Jakkula Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. G. Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the respondent-Railways.

Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, mainly contends that after the petitioner was declared medical unfit initially by the respondent-Railways, the petitioner got examined in Gandhi Hospital and was declared fit by vision and also physically fit, but the same was not considered by the respondent authorities. Learned counsel submits that the delay was due various oral and written representations given by the petitioner to consider him for re-

medical examination, and hence the rejection of his request is illegal.

4. Learned counsel for respondent-Railways, based on the counter affidavit, submits that as against the medical results of the year 2009, the petitioner did not approach the appellate authority within one month, and he approached the respondent-authorities after two years, and this factum has been communicated in the letter while rejecting his request for re- medical examination in terms of Paragraph No.522 of the IRMM Volume- I, 3^rd edition, Year-2000 (Annexure-2). It is also stated that Letter date 04.08.2011 pertains to previous grievance of the petitioner and the Rule position in terms of Indian Medical Manual are communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 10.04.2017, and the petitioner had again filed this writ petition with same contentions. It is also contended that in terms of Railway Board Circular No.71/2016, the scheme of engagement of Course Completed Act Apprentice into Group -D vacancies had been terminated and 20% weightage had been provided in the vacancies of recruitment under Railway Recruitment Cell, Secunderabad.

5. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it may be noted that, in the first medical examination during 2009 under the Indian Railways Medical Manual Rules, the petitioner was cert